It is very clear that FCOM and AFL SOP were not followed (AFL's SOP take precedence over FCOM, but it contains pretty much the same procedures - I quoted them before).
I also looked at russian Federal Aviation Rules (used by russian operators), current edition.
It states that it is prohibited to commence a flight if hoarfrost, wet snow or ice is present on surfaces on wings, fuselage, control mechanisms, tail fin and stabilizer, propellers, windshield and engine, unless otherwise stated in FCOM.
I knew before about ban of snow on wing surface, but not that it is specifically wet snow which is banned. Now I begin to see why Aeroflot carefully crafted their statement:
"There are no violations whatsoever and this can be clearly seen on the video -
snow has been blown off instantly during takeoff roll and therefore definitely didn't affect aerodynamics and safety."
By saying it has been blown off instantly, they are trying to imply it was a DRY snow, which according to federal rules is permissible to be present on the wings (not mentioned).
Video approximately started at the time of application of takeoff thrust. Majority of snow was blown by the 40'th second, while rotation started on 45'th second, therefore by any standards you can not define this as "blown off instantly". Needless to say, some patches of snow remained stuck to inner flap panel long after rotation.
I quoted METARs of the day this video was taken in the similiar topic in Tech Log.
Nor Russian FAR, neither other related statutes define "wet snow" by the way.
PS. Because addition of 'unless otherwise stated in FCOM' is used in that FAR requirement, you can also argue that FCOM/SOP of A320 does not distinguish between wet and dry snow - it should be removed anyway.
The reason why Aeroflot might be less concerned about violation of their SOP of A320 is because they can always say 'we actually implied that it is wet snow (not dry) which must be removed from critical surfaces when conducting exterior inspection of A320' (they can amend their SOP of A320 at any time, with just formal approval of each amendment by russian CAA). While FAR is far too superior for them to argue with and try to violate, so they 'shaped' their statement to fit FAR rather then SOP/FCOM/Airbus approach of clean wing policy. Btw, it's Mr. Koldunov or Chalik who signs off SOP of Aeroflot, statement regarding takeoff was also made by Koldunov and Chalik. Looks like they attempted to avoid problems with CAA by producing that kind of statement, though if will be hard for them to argue that snow was not wet
Suggestions?